The Air's design is already so close...
to... I won't say "good" in the absence of defining that term (which would take too much energy away from my focus now)... but let's just say that the current Air hits such a number of sweet spots... IMHO it doesn't need a redesign as complete as what the DigiTimes rumor suggests.
I agree the size of the keyboard is one thing that the Air got right, and importantly right (because ergonomics relates to health and safety and so should almost by definition trump all else) should not be reduced.
I also think shrinking the screen is a mistake, and that this was also something the Air already gets right. Within that size, of course I'd always welcome improvements in the quality (contrast, or -- there's always plenty of room to include screens' outdoor performance) ... and even welcome touch capability.
But design always involves tradeoffs. And subjectivity about how something will be received. That intensifies if you have a policy of shying away from market research and testing with users outside of your company.
The subjectivity for example can mean that when you draw up a series of possible design revisions... the last one can tend to seem the best. More than is true... defined for the moment as -- more than will seem to be true a year later. Any cheif designer needs another skilled person present who is free to say "I don't think the 7th and last one you drew IS the best, I think it all peaked at version 5."
If one can understand how songwriters famously have trouble picking out which song will grab people the most... then one can understand how subjectivity can impair a lone-designer's or lone-decision-maker's ability to evaluate which design will work out best.
All of which is my preamble to ssaying that the 11.6" screen mentioned by DIgiTimes, if true, suggests to me that Jobs or Jobs & Ive may be getting carried away with notions of how drastically the Air's design needs revamping. There can be a logic to saying that if several small changes are needed (and maybe 1 or 2 new technologies have become available), then let's do a general revision.
But IMHO the Air's so good that it doesn't need general revision; it needs small continuous improvements (in the Japanese term's sense), plus just one big reality-facing problem-solving effort in terms of case strength (hinges, "white donut" problem, and keeping trackpad button from hitting bezel).
Don't overdo it, Apple!
to... I won't say "good" in the absence of defining that term (which would take too much energy away from my focus now)... but let's just say that the current Air hits such a number of sweet spots... IMHO it doesn't need a redesign as complete as what the DigiTimes rumor suggests.
I agree the size of the keyboard is one thing that the Air got right, and importantly right (because ergonomics relates to health and safety and so should almost by definition trump all else) should not be reduced.
I also think shrinking the screen is a mistake, and that this was also something the Air already gets right. Within that size, of course I'd always welcome improvements in the quality (contrast, or -- there's always plenty of room to include screens' outdoor performance) ... and even welcome touch capability.
But design always involves tradeoffs. And subjectivity about how something will be received. That intensifies if you have a policy of shying away from market research and testing with users outside of your company.
The subjectivity for example can mean that when you draw up a series of possible design revisions... the last one can tend to seem the best. More than is true... defined for the moment as -- more than will seem to be true a year later. Any cheif designer needs another skilled person present who is free to say "I don't think the 7th and last one you drew IS the best, I think it all peaked at version 5."
If one can understand how songwriters famously have trouble picking out which song will grab people the most... then one can understand how subjectivity can impair a lone-designer's or lone-decision-maker's ability to evaluate which design will work out best.
All of which is my preamble to ssaying that the 11.6" screen mentioned by DIgiTimes, if true, suggests to me that Jobs or Jobs & Ive may be getting carried away with notions of how drastically the Air's design needs revamping. There can be a logic to saying that if several small changes are needed (and maybe 1 or 2 new technologies have become available), then let's do a general revision.
But IMHO the Air's so good that it doesn't need general revision; it needs small continuous improvements (in the Japanese term's sense), plus just one big reality-facing problem-solving effort in terms of case strength (hinges, "white donut" problem, and keeping trackpad button from hitting bezel).
Don't overdo it, Apple!